Tweet
October 14, 2006
REGNUM » We are not afraid of war,.
We are not afraid of war, but we don't want it: Interview with Armenian
Defense Minister
The Secretary of the presidential National Security Council, Defense
Minister of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan has given an interview to REGNUM news
agency (Russia) and El Pais newspaper (Spain)
Mr. Minister, what do you think about the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh?
There is a view that Armenia is unwilling to cede Nagorno-Karabakh but is
unable to develop it. Is it true?
This may be just one of the numerous personal views that do not reflect the
real situation. What do they mean: Armenia is developing or not developing
Nagorno-Karabakh? Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is an independent state and its
economic growth is quite comparable with that of Armenia. In Armenia the
annual GDP growth is 12%. Of course, we seek even better results but, you
must agree that not all post-Soviet republics have such a rate.
Perhaps, those who express such a view think that Armenia should more
actively support Nagorno-Karabakh? I don't dispute that. And
Nagorno-Karabakh residents, people who live in NKR, certainly, think
likewise. However, you should understand that the situation "neither peace
nor war" is not attractive for investors and businessmen. On the other hand,
Nagorno-Karabakh is steadily developing. The situation you could see some
few years ago is quite incomparable with what you can see now. The
difference is obvious.
You have qualified the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh as "neither peace nor
war." For how long can this situation last now that Azerbaijan is quite
actively strengthening its economy?
The Azeri economy is really developing, but in 2005 Armenia had bigger
economic growth. This year, due to growing oil revenues, Azerbaijan is
developing a bit more actively.
However, it would be wrong to say that the economic growth in Azerbaijan may
force the Armenian side to capitulate. On the contrary, it may urge us to
work better and to seek improvement not only in the economy but in other
sectors - to become a developed state with a modern, highly efficient army.
Only this will allow us to effectively oppose Azerbaijan in case of new war.
I would like to say that one can't built an efficient army on money only.
Besides, Azerbaijan does not have an overwhelming economic advantage over
Armenia. It will take Azerbaijan several decades to attain the advantages it
had in the early 1990s. As you remember, even then, despite its big
advantages, the Azeri side lost the war. So, I would like to advise all
those relying on money to come to their senses and to consider the lessons
of the war Azerbaijan has once unsuccessfully unleashed against the
indigenous population of Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, can we say that today Nagorno-Karabakh is supported by Armenia's
national budget?
To tell the truth, I can't say exactly how much Armenia has subsidized to
Nagorno-Karabakh for 2007. At the same time, we should not forget that
Nagorno-Karabakh is an independent republic, who can freely dispose of its
incomes. I mean that NK's budget consists not only of Armenia's subsidies
but also of own incomes: tax revenues and other payments. The greater part
of the humanitarian assistance comes from the Diaspora - Armenians living
outside Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh lives the life all
democratically developing states normally live.
In one of you interviews you have said that Armenia has 45,000-strong army
and it is much for the country. How much does Armenia budget for its army?
In 2007 Armenia plans to spend 3.5% of its GDP on military needs - some
$270mln-280mln, depending on the rate of the national currency - AMD. This
may be much for Armenia, but, compared with some other countries, this is
not enough for building a modern efficient army. As they say, everything is
relative.
Do you think that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem can be resolved by peace?
Of course, it can. Perhaps, my comparison is a bit primitive but - any peace
agreement implies agreement of the sides. This is like marriage. There is no
marriage without mutual agreement. So, if we seek to solve the problem,
while Azerbaijan - not, we can't help it. We believe that this problem must
be solved exclusively peacefully on the basis of compromise.
What kind of compromise will it be? Can you imagine the return of refugees
from Azerbaijan to Nagorno-Karabakh?
When we say peaceful resolution, we mean stable peace. Of course, at some
time in the future I see some possibility of the refugees' return. After
all, we can't isolate our countries from each other, we can't build "a Great
Wall of China" and say that we will not contact with Azerbaijan any more,
can we? History has shown that we can't. We have had conflicts and wars
before but we still continued our contacts: after some time, Armenians and
Azeris returned and began living together.
However, now that the problem is yet unresolved, now that people have not
yet healed the wounds they got during the war, the return of refugees is
impossible.
You know, the compromise is not about this. The people who left
Nagorno-Karabakh 14-15 years ago have long settled down in new environments
and are hardly prepared to leave everything they have there and to go back
to Nagorno-Karabakh. The compromise is about something quite different -
about Azerbaijan's recognizing the right of the Nagorno-Karabakh people to
live independently, so they can feel themselves really secure and no longer
rely on the security zone. There are other important components, too. The
compromise must concern security - only then it will lead to stable peace.
Why does Armenia strongly object to the transfer of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict to the UN. Aren't you interested in discussion?
Armenia objects to the transfer of the problem to any instance from the
format of its present discussion. What can this transfer give us, after all?
We have OSCE Minsk Group, whose members are all on the UN Security Council.
What will the transfer change? Do you really believe that people
representing, say, Somalia or some other far-away country are sufficiently
competent of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem to give us sensible advice? I
think that the whole point is that we should not prevent the work of the
OSCE MG who is expert in the matter.
Azerbaijan is trying to involve GUAM in the peace process. You in Yerevan
say that, by doing it, Azerbaijan is leading the negotiating process into a
deadlock. Do you think that under such conditions Nagorno-Karabakh may be
involved in the process and at what stage?
Nagorno-Karabakh's involvement in the negotiating process will be beneficial
at any stage.
Then why isn't it involved in the talks?
Azerbaijan does not want it to. They say that, if Nagorno-Karabakh is
involved in the talks, they will stop the negotiating process. We had to
choose: either to negotiate without NK or not to negotiate at all. Judge
yourselves what is better. You know, when there are no negotiations, the
situation is fraught with new war. I have repeatedly said that we are not
afraid of war, but we do not want it to resume. We do not fear this war, but
we realize what catastrophic consequences it may have for both nations.
Is war possible in the coming five years?
I have always said and am saying now that Defense Minister, especially the
Defense Minister of Armenia, must be always ready for war and must show high
responsibility for his country's security. On the other hand, I believe that
there will be no war in the near future. First, I am deeply convinced that
today the Azeri army is not capable of waging a large-scale war. Second, the
world community will strictly react to such actions as, in fact, a new war
in Nagorno-Karabakh will spur up new wars in very many other places. We must
know it and must think about security.
What exactly has the OSCE MG achieved, so far? Does it have any
achievements?
Of course, it has. For 12 years already there has been truce in the region -
there is no war. And this is the most important thing. What the
international community wants is to prevent the resumption of the conflict,
to prevent people from killing each other. And we have it. Second, once we
were very close to solution. This problem is so difficult that one shouldn't
expect a magician to come, wave his magic wand and solve it. One should work
hard to solve it. The people involved in the peace process should be well
informed of the situation.
Could you specify when exactly the sides were close to solution?
I think we were close to solution in Bucharest, in Paris, then, there was
Key-West. One can't say that today Armenia or Azerbaijan reject the MG's
proposals pointblank. On the other, show me any single person who really
believes that the problem will be solved the moment it is put on the UN
agenda. If there are such people, let's listen to them.
You mean if there is no war, it is already good?
Of course, it is.
The Turkish and Azeri sections of Armenia's state border are blocked. It is
clear that Azerbaijan will not open the border until the Nagorno-Karabakh is
resolved. And what about Turkey? Has Armenia negotiated this problem with
the Turkish side?
We have repeatedly and firmly said that we are ready to establish diplomatic
relations with Turkey with no preliminary conditions. I think that
diplomatic relations are established exactly like that. However, the Turks
are setting some conditions, avoiding dialogue - what can we do?
Unfortunately, the initial talks have been stopped, and we still have no
diplomatic relations.
Do you have any contacts now?
No, we have no serious official contacts. In the last three-four years there
have been several contacts between our foreign ministries but these were
once-time actions that can hardly be qualified as state relations.
Why is Ankara so persistently refusing to establish relations?
You know, it is a thankless thing to comment on the questions that are
beyond my competence. Obviously, they in Turkey will give you a clearer
answer, though, speaking personally, I have not heard anything specific from
them, so far.
I think that we must express our position and the Turks theirs and the
international community should judge who is right and who is wrong. The
international community should decide who complies with the principles of
the European community and who does not. I would like to say once again -
our position is very clear: Armenia is ready to establish relations with
Turkey with no preliminary conditions. Even more, we believe that the talks
for Turkey's admission into the EU may be useful for Armenia. You know, we
want to have predictable neighbors.
Today the situation over Iran is quite controversial. What consequences may
its aggravation have for Armenia?
Naturally, this will have negative consequences for Armenia. I don't even
want to think about it as the situation will be really hard. First, Iran
borders on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. Second, for Armenia, Iran is
an outlet into the outer world. So, any instability there is quite
undesirable for Armenia.
Armenia has good relations with Iran. How can you explain this - what is the
formula of these relations? Are the tensions over Iran having any direct or
indirect influence on the atmosphere of Armenian-Iranian relations?
There is no such influence. Concerning our relations, I have already said
that Iran immediately borders on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.
Besides, Iran is Armenia's key economic partner. It is rich in energy
resources and it is extremely important for Armenia to effectively plan its
energy security.
On the other hand, Armenia is signatory to the agreement on nonproliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and strictly complies with all of its
requirements. That's why our priority in relations with Iran is economic
cooperation, while, in security, we just exchange views and regular visits.
We always remember that, though being an Islamic country and an OIC member,
Iran shows restrained position on our conflict. Few countries in the OIC
show similar stance.
Could it be otherwise?
Of course, it could. We should be realistic.
Will the blockade of Iran exacerbate the blockade of Armenia?
Of course, it will. If this happens, we will have only the Georgian road
left.
And what if the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia worsens.
It will be very bad, too. Any instability in Georgia is a threat for
stability in Armenia. Our main road runs via Georgia. As a matter of
principle, landlocked countries often get in such situations.
Will Georgia's aspiration to join NATO have any impact on Armenian-Georgian
relations or, particularly, on the prospects of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict settlement?
I don't think that Georgia's aspiration to join NATO will have any impact on
the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Besides, I don't think that we should tell Georgia which security system to
join or how to ensure its national interests. I hope that, whatever security
system Georgia joins, it will preserve friendly relations with Armenia. I
think we are very close neighbors. Besides, Georgia is home to quite many
Armenians who are citizens of that country.
Do you have similar arguments for Azerbaijan's joining NATO?
I would like to say once again - Armenia welcomes the predictability of the
policies and values of its neighbors. I see nothing bad in our neighbors'
aspiration to join an organization propagating human values. The richer our
strategy the better.
Do you recognize the territorial integrity of Georgia?
We have long recognized Georgia as a state, exchanged instruments,
demarcated borders.
I mean in the light of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
It is Georgia's business.
Do you mean it is Georgia's internal affair?
We do not permit ourselves to give any assessments of the matter. We are not
involved in those processes, and I see no sense in talking about them.
Does Armenia expect any advantages from its participation in the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)?
This organization is exactly for giving its members advantages. This is a
collective security treaty, which means that its signatories should
collectively oppose the challenges each of them may face. On the other hand,
the signatory states are not yet fully prepared for sending their troops to
each others' territories should any of them suffer from aggression or face a
challenge.
If Azerbaijan attacks Armenia, will you ask the CSTO for help? Will they
help?
I think you better ask this question to the heads of the CSTO states - they
may give you an exhaustive answer. I can't answer in their stead. In any
case, one can hope that if he is a member of some organization, he has the
right to rely on its partners. In the modern world, one can't build its
security on one's own. Even a strong country like the US does not act alone
and leans on its partners. We all know that.
That's why one can't ensure one's security without integration and
collective efforts. Do you really think that 45,000 soldiers can ensure
Armenia's security. Of course, they can't. By the way, we will shortly
complete a strategy of national security. An inter-department commission has
been working on it for already a year. Its basic principles have been
approved by leading professional world centers, particularly, by the
Academic Committee of the US National Defense University and was considered
by a NATO international expert commission. Shortly, we will send the
document to Moscow for the consideration of an expert group of the Russian
State Administration Academy. Armenia's National Security Strategy clearly
says that international integration is a guarantee of Armenia's security.
Do you mean integration on the Caucasian level?
I mean both regional and global integration, cooperation in the widest
possible context.
Is it possible for Armenia to integrate with Azerbaijan and Georgia on the
Caucasian level?
Why not. Integration with Azerbaijan will be possible only after the
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Until our soldiers are
confronting each other in trenches, we can hardly speak about any serious
integration. On the other hand, we can see some signs of integration within
international organizations. For example, joint participation in BSEC and
the CIS. With Azerbaijan and Georgia we are also integrating in the
framework of NATO, particularly, under the IPAP. All the three countries are
involved in some groups and indirectly cooperate within peacekeeping
actions. However, full integration will be possible only after the
resolution of the conflict, when we will stop regarding each other as
enemies. As regards Georgia, we already cooperate on very many issues.
Being CSTO member, Armenia actively cooperates with NATO. Experts see some
contradiction in it. What is your position on the matter?
You know, if I thought that these two directions contradict each other, I
would not be hear. I take part in this process and consider that it is very
important.
Judge yourselves, why can Finland be outside NATO but, at the same time, be
EU member and have normal relations with Russia? By the way, members of the
PACE monitoring commission visited us yesterday and one of them was from
Finland. One more example is Austria. Of course, I don't say that in
development and expenses Armenia is on the same level with developed
European countries, but we will reach their level some day.
Under the NATO IPAP we plan to raise our armed forces to the world standards
by 2015. Why should we think that we can't do it. If we go back to the
1990 - then people could not even imagine that Armenia might some day have
an army it has today. We are receiving very favorable reports about our
forces in the Balkans and Iraq. We have to bring our whole army to this
level.
REGNUM » We are not afraid of war,.
We are not afraid of war, but we don't want it: Interview with Armenian
Defense Minister
The Secretary of the presidential National Security Council, Defense
Minister of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan has given an interview to REGNUM news
agency (Russia) and El Pais newspaper (Spain)
Mr. Minister, what do you think about the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh?
There is a view that Armenia is unwilling to cede Nagorno-Karabakh but is
unable to develop it. Is it true?
This may be just one of the numerous personal views that do not reflect the
real situation. What do they mean: Armenia is developing or not developing
Nagorno-Karabakh? Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is an independent state and its
economic growth is quite comparable with that of Armenia. In Armenia the
annual GDP growth is 12%. Of course, we seek even better results but, you
must agree that not all post-Soviet republics have such a rate.
Perhaps, those who express such a view think that Armenia should more
actively support Nagorno-Karabakh? I don't dispute that. And
Nagorno-Karabakh residents, people who live in NKR, certainly, think
likewise. However, you should understand that the situation "neither peace
nor war" is not attractive for investors and businessmen. On the other hand,
Nagorno-Karabakh is steadily developing. The situation you could see some
few years ago is quite incomparable with what you can see now. The
difference is obvious.
You have qualified the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh as "neither peace nor
war." For how long can this situation last now that Azerbaijan is quite
actively strengthening its economy?
The Azeri economy is really developing, but in 2005 Armenia had bigger
economic growth. This year, due to growing oil revenues, Azerbaijan is
developing a bit more actively.
However, it would be wrong to say that the economic growth in Azerbaijan may
force the Armenian side to capitulate. On the contrary, it may urge us to
work better and to seek improvement not only in the economy but in other
sectors - to become a developed state with a modern, highly efficient army.
Only this will allow us to effectively oppose Azerbaijan in case of new war.
I would like to say that one can't built an efficient army on money only.
Besides, Azerbaijan does not have an overwhelming economic advantage over
Armenia. It will take Azerbaijan several decades to attain the advantages it
had in the early 1990s. As you remember, even then, despite its big
advantages, the Azeri side lost the war. So, I would like to advise all
those relying on money to come to their senses and to consider the lessons
of the war Azerbaijan has once unsuccessfully unleashed against the
indigenous population of Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, can we say that today Nagorno-Karabakh is supported by Armenia's
national budget?
To tell the truth, I can't say exactly how much Armenia has subsidized to
Nagorno-Karabakh for 2007. At the same time, we should not forget that
Nagorno-Karabakh is an independent republic, who can freely dispose of its
incomes. I mean that NK's budget consists not only of Armenia's subsidies
but also of own incomes: tax revenues and other payments. The greater part
of the humanitarian assistance comes from the Diaspora - Armenians living
outside Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh lives the life all
democratically developing states normally live.
In one of you interviews you have said that Armenia has 45,000-strong army
and it is much for the country. How much does Armenia budget for its army?
In 2007 Armenia plans to spend 3.5% of its GDP on military needs - some
$270mln-280mln, depending on the rate of the national currency - AMD. This
may be much for Armenia, but, compared with some other countries, this is
not enough for building a modern efficient army. As they say, everything is
relative.
Do you think that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem can be resolved by peace?
Of course, it can. Perhaps, my comparison is a bit primitive but - any peace
agreement implies agreement of the sides. This is like marriage. There is no
marriage without mutual agreement. So, if we seek to solve the problem,
while Azerbaijan - not, we can't help it. We believe that this problem must
be solved exclusively peacefully on the basis of compromise.
What kind of compromise will it be? Can you imagine the return of refugees
from Azerbaijan to Nagorno-Karabakh?
When we say peaceful resolution, we mean stable peace. Of course, at some
time in the future I see some possibility of the refugees' return. After
all, we can't isolate our countries from each other, we can't build "a Great
Wall of China" and say that we will not contact with Azerbaijan any more,
can we? History has shown that we can't. We have had conflicts and wars
before but we still continued our contacts: after some time, Armenians and
Azeris returned and began living together.
However, now that the problem is yet unresolved, now that people have not
yet healed the wounds they got during the war, the return of refugees is
impossible.
You know, the compromise is not about this. The people who left
Nagorno-Karabakh 14-15 years ago have long settled down in new environments
and are hardly prepared to leave everything they have there and to go back
to Nagorno-Karabakh. The compromise is about something quite different -
about Azerbaijan's recognizing the right of the Nagorno-Karabakh people to
live independently, so they can feel themselves really secure and no longer
rely on the security zone. There are other important components, too. The
compromise must concern security - only then it will lead to stable peace.
Why does Armenia strongly object to the transfer of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict to the UN. Aren't you interested in discussion?
Armenia objects to the transfer of the problem to any instance from the
format of its present discussion. What can this transfer give us, after all?
We have OSCE Minsk Group, whose members are all on the UN Security Council.
What will the transfer change? Do you really believe that people
representing, say, Somalia or some other far-away country are sufficiently
competent of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem to give us sensible advice? I
think that the whole point is that we should not prevent the work of the
OSCE MG who is expert in the matter.
Azerbaijan is trying to involve GUAM in the peace process. You in Yerevan
say that, by doing it, Azerbaijan is leading the negotiating process into a
deadlock. Do you think that under such conditions Nagorno-Karabakh may be
involved in the process and at what stage?
Nagorno-Karabakh's involvement in the negotiating process will be beneficial
at any stage.
Then why isn't it involved in the talks?
Azerbaijan does not want it to. They say that, if Nagorno-Karabakh is
involved in the talks, they will stop the negotiating process. We had to
choose: either to negotiate without NK or not to negotiate at all. Judge
yourselves what is better. You know, when there are no negotiations, the
situation is fraught with new war. I have repeatedly said that we are not
afraid of war, but we do not want it to resume. We do not fear this war, but
we realize what catastrophic consequences it may have for both nations.
Is war possible in the coming five years?
I have always said and am saying now that Defense Minister, especially the
Defense Minister of Armenia, must be always ready for war and must show high
responsibility for his country's security. On the other hand, I believe that
there will be no war in the near future. First, I am deeply convinced that
today the Azeri army is not capable of waging a large-scale war. Second, the
world community will strictly react to such actions as, in fact, a new war
in Nagorno-Karabakh will spur up new wars in very many other places. We must
know it and must think about security.
What exactly has the OSCE MG achieved, so far? Does it have any
achievements?
Of course, it has. For 12 years already there has been truce in the region -
there is no war. And this is the most important thing. What the
international community wants is to prevent the resumption of the conflict,
to prevent people from killing each other. And we have it. Second, once we
were very close to solution. This problem is so difficult that one shouldn't
expect a magician to come, wave his magic wand and solve it. One should work
hard to solve it. The people involved in the peace process should be well
informed of the situation.
Could you specify when exactly the sides were close to solution?
I think we were close to solution in Bucharest, in Paris, then, there was
Key-West. One can't say that today Armenia or Azerbaijan reject the MG's
proposals pointblank. On the other, show me any single person who really
believes that the problem will be solved the moment it is put on the UN
agenda. If there are such people, let's listen to them.
You mean if there is no war, it is already good?
Of course, it is.
The Turkish and Azeri sections of Armenia's state border are blocked. It is
clear that Azerbaijan will not open the border until the Nagorno-Karabakh is
resolved. And what about Turkey? Has Armenia negotiated this problem with
the Turkish side?
We have repeatedly and firmly said that we are ready to establish diplomatic
relations with Turkey with no preliminary conditions. I think that
diplomatic relations are established exactly like that. However, the Turks
are setting some conditions, avoiding dialogue - what can we do?
Unfortunately, the initial talks have been stopped, and we still have no
diplomatic relations.
Do you have any contacts now?
No, we have no serious official contacts. In the last three-four years there
have been several contacts between our foreign ministries but these were
once-time actions that can hardly be qualified as state relations.
Why is Ankara so persistently refusing to establish relations?
You know, it is a thankless thing to comment on the questions that are
beyond my competence. Obviously, they in Turkey will give you a clearer
answer, though, speaking personally, I have not heard anything specific from
them, so far.
I think that we must express our position and the Turks theirs and the
international community should judge who is right and who is wrong. The
international community should decide who complies with the principles of
the European community and who does not. I would like to say once again -
our position is very clear: Armenia is ready to establish relations with
Turkey with no preliminary conditions. Even more, we believe that the talks
for Turkey's admission into the EU may be useful for Armenia. You know, we
want to have predictable neighbors.
Today the situation over Iran is quite controversial. What consequences may
its aggravation have for Armenia?
Naturally, this will have negative consequences for Armenia. I don't even
want to think about it as the situation will be really hard. First, Iran
borders on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. Second, for Armenia, Iran is
an outlet into the outer world. So, any instability there is quite
undesirable for Armenia.
Armenia has good relations with Iran. How can you explain this - what is the
formula of these relations? Are the tensions over Iran having any direct or
indirect influence on the atmosphere of Armenian-Iranian relations?
There is no such influence. Concerning our relations, I have already said
that Iran immediately borders on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.
Besides, Iran is Armenia's key economic partner. It is rich in energy
resources and it is extremely important for Armenia to effectively plan its
energy security.
On the other hand, Armenia is signatory to the agreement on nonproliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and strictly complies with all of its
requirements. That's why our priority in relations with Iran is economic
cooperation, while, in security, we just exchange views and regular visits.
We always remember that, though being an Islamic country and an OIC member,
Iran shows restrained position on our conflict. Few countries in the OIC
show similar stance.
Could it be otherwise?
Of course, it could. We should be realistic.
Will the blockade of Iran exacerbate the blockade of Armenia?
Of course, it will. If this happens, we will have only the Georgian road
left.
And what if the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia worsens.
It will be very bad, too. Any instability in Georgia is a threat for
stability in Armenia. Our main road runs via Georgia. As a matter of
principle, landlocked countries often get in such situations.
Will Georgia's aspiration to join NATO have any impact on Armenian-Georgian
relations or, particularly, on the prospects of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict settlement?
I don't think that Georgia's aspiration to join NATO will have any impact on
the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Besides, I don't think that we should tell Georgia which security system to
join or how to ensure its national interests. I hope that, whatever security
system Georgia joins, it will preserve friendly relations with Armenia. I
think we are very close neighbors. Besides, Georgia is home to quite many
Armenians who are citizens of that country.
Do you have similar arguments for Azerbaijan's joining NATO?
I would like to say once again - Armenia welcomes the predictability of the
policies and values of its neighbors. I see nothing bad in our neighbors'
aspiration to join an organization propagating human values. The richer our
strategy the better.
Do you recognize the territorial integrity of Georgia?
We have long recognized Georgia as a state, exchanged instruments,
demarcated borders.
I mean in the light of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
It is Georgia's business.
Do you mean it is Georgia's internal affair?
We do not permit ourselves to give any assessments of the matter. We are not
involved in those processes, and I see no sense in talking about them.
Does Armenia expect any advantages from its participation in the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)?
This organization is exactly for giving its members advantages. This is a
collective security treaty, which means that its signatories should
collectively oppose the challenges each of them may face. On the other hand,
the signatory states are not yet fully prepared for sending their troops to
each others' territories should any of them suffer from aggression or face a
challenge.
If Azerbaijan attacks Armenia, will you ask the CSTO for help? Will they
help?
I think you better ask this question to the heads of the CSTO states - they
may give you an exhaustive answer. I can't answer in their stead. In any
case, one can hope that if he is a member of some organization, he has the
right to rely on its partners. In the modern world, one can't build its
security on one's own. Even a strong country like the US does not act alone
and leans on its partners. We all know that.
That's why one can't ensure one's security without integration and
collective efforts. Do you really think that 45,000 soldiers can ensure
Armenia's security. Of course, they can't. By the way, we will shortly
complete a strategy of national security. An inter-department commission has
been working on it for already a year. Its basic principles have been
approved by leading professional world centers, particularly, by the
Academic Committee of the US National Defense University and was considered
by a NATO international expert commission. Shortly, we will send the
document to Moscow for the consideration of an expert group of the Russian
State Administration Academy. Armenia's National Security Strategy clearly
says that international integration is a guarantee of Armenia's security.
Do you mean integration on the Caucasian level?
I mean both regional and global integration, cooperation in the widest
possible context.
Is it possible for Armenia to integrate with Azerbaijan and Georgia on the
Caucasian level?
Why not. Integration with Azerbaijan will be possible only after the
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Until our soldiers are
confronting each other in trenches, we can hardly speak about any serious
integration. On the other hand, we can see some signs of integration within
international organizations. For example, joint participation in BSEC and
the CIS. With Azerbaijan and Georgia we are also integrating in the
framework of NATO, particularly, under the IPAP. All the three countries are
involved in some groups and indirectly cooperate within peacekeeping
actions. However, full integration will be possible only after the
resolution of the conflict, when we will stop regarding each other as
enemies. As regards Georgia, we already cooperate on very many issues.
Being CSTO member, Armenia actively cooperates with NATO. Experts see some
contradiction in it. What is your position on the matter?
You know, if I thought that these two directions contradict each other, I
would not be hear. I take part in this process and consider that it is very
important.
Judge yourselves, why can Finland be outside NATO but, at the same time, be
EU member and have normal relations with Russia? By the way, members of the
PACE monitoring commission visited us yesterday and one of them was from
Finland. One more example is Austria. Of course, I don't say that in
development and expenses Armenia is on the same level with developed
European countries, but we will reach their level some day.
Under the NATO IPAP we plan to raise our armed forces to the world standards
by 2015. Why should we think that we can't do it. If we go back to the
1990 - then people could not even imagine that Armenia might some day have
an army it has today. We are receiving very favorable reports about our
forces in the Balkans and Iraq. We have to bring our whole army to this
level.